(urth) Wolfe as Heretic

Lane Haygood lhaygood at gmail.com
Wed May 19 17:20:21 PDT 2010


The term "Satan" means accuser, and in most texts, the angel known as
"Satan" (which can be a term of office as well as name, acts as "God's
prosecutor," seeking to tempt man into sin.  Consider the book of Job:
 Satan is given free reign to walk into heaven and make a challenge to
God, basically betting on Job's life.  God ultimately wins (Job is
found righteous through his trial) but it is Satan that puts him to
the test.

A lot of this gets obscured throughout the ages as words and terms are
translated and Christianity begins to piggyback onto folk beliefs,
plus every two-bit occultist throughout history who has muddied the
waters with their ravings.  The difference between an Anton LaVey and
a more "respectable" occultist like Albertus Magnus is one of age, not
necessarily credibility.

As I understand Catholic doctrine (again, not a Catholic myself), none
of the angels that fell with Lucifer are able to take action directly
against humans, because like all angels, they lack independent will.
However, they are able to tempt humans and humans are free to enter
into exchanges with them for supernatural efficacy, e.g., spells or
magic.

LH

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:26 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> Satan works for the Management.
>
> You're not supposed to have to do with him: better, if you are lucky he
> won't have anything to do with you. You hope he doesn't have to do with
> you.
>
> When he thinks someone is doing really well, he brings him to God's
> attention. Everything after that is on God. God can choose not do test
> you, and presumably does occasionally, since good people do ocasionally do
> well without the kinds of ups and downs Job had.
>
> It is not ever good to come to the attention of the powerful.
>
> But if you have to do with him professionally, or in the course of your
> business, it's not necessarily a huge deal. It all depends on your
> atttitude.
>
> .
>
>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember also that the several writers of Biblical texts came from
>>> different stages along the evolution of the native Hebrew religion
>>> from one essentially indistinguishable from the general polytheism of
>>> the region to one of henotheism (in essence, a cult of Yahweh) to one
>>> of monotheism.  The work of the scholars and priests of Judaism has
>>> been to change the religion.  This could be a side effect of
>>> standardization of practice and teachings, in essence, organizing the
>>> religion from its tribal roots to one practiced by a priestly caste
>>> and promulgated through the use of standard texts and "orthodox"
>>> theology.
>>>
>>> The Bible (as well as early Church teachings based on it) represents
>>> the cultural, social and theological evolution of a people.
>>>
>>> LH
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>> That's one theory, certainly, but it's not uncontroversial even among
>> comparative religionists.  Judaism was constantly cheek-by-jowl with
>> paganism, and there was a constant struggle to keep it free of the
>> religious
>> observances of "the nations".  There is an observable change from the
>> Pentateuch's language concerning other gods (what Max Mueller termed
>> "henotheistic") to that of the later Writings and Prophets, but that may
>> not
>> be as significant as Mueller thought it was.  And Mueller himself was far
>> from an objective observer, since his teleology leads ultimately to a
>> non-personal, transcendent God which is inseparable from Nature--familiar
>> to
>> those who have read widely in late 19th-century liberal Christianity.
>>
>> I will grumpily admit, however, that "henotheism" is a useful word.
>>
>> Just a brief comment on Antonio's point earlier : The position of the
>> Vatican, as far as I'm aware, is that Satan indeed has objective
>> existence,
>> and power to tempt humanity.  Magic has always been forbidden (despite
>> Renaissance speculations and hair-splitting), not because it doesn't work,
>> but because one petitions the wrong forces in using it.  In James Blish's
>> excellent novel *The Day After Judgment*, the black magician Theron Ware
>> upbraids a Dominican who practices ritual magic and divination by saying
>> something like "There is no such thing as 'white magic'.  It is all black,
>> black, black as the ace of spades."  That's the official RC position as
>> near
>> as I can figure, and although to believe in the efficacy of sorcery might
>> be
>> old-fashioned, it ain't heretical.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt +
>>
>> I feel again a spark of that ancient flame.
>> Virgil [Publius Vergilius Maro] (70-19 B.C.), Aeneid, bk. IV, l. 23
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



More information about the Urth mailing list